Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    For half a million?   YUP, I'd do it!

    heck I'd do it for nuttin
    

Everyone has a price, be it financial or otherwise. 

Not everyone believes that they "can be bought"; this usually indicates
that no-one has made them an offer that comes close to their price.

 It becomes an issue of bargaining; is it worth it to me to make the deal worth
it to you? That is, if I really want to make you do something (and I have the
necessary resources), then I can offer you enough {money, status, toys,
warm-fuzzies, moral reward} to make you do it. 

 		Nigel

ps: Old joke about the Woman and the Philosopher follows <FF>

A philosopher came up to a woman at a party and the following exchange
took place:

Philosopher:
	"Would you sleep with me for $1000000?"

Woman:
	"Certainly"

Philosopher:
	"Well would you sleep with me for $10?"

Woman: (in very angry tone)
	"What do you think I am, a whore?" 

Philosopher:
	"We've already established that; now we're just arguing about your
	 price"

    How about a third question - "Do you believe this story?"  I'd
    answer "No".  The thing that makes me doubt it is the quoted fee
    - far too high.
    
    The latest Newsweek has a small item on Miss Hall.  It seems that
    she is one of the few honest people who worked in that department,
    and leads a very straightforward and wholesome life.  Why is everyone
    foaming at the mouth trying to add sex to what is already a sorry
    mess?
    					Steve

    I wouldn't do it -- I have a high "privacy" level and modeling nude
    implies a willingness to have your privacy violated in other ways
    (i.e. media coverage, unwanted attention in public places, etc.)
    

    foaming at the mouth
    who's foaming at the mouth?
    

Hmmm.  I'd pose nude for not too much money.  No big deal.  They're not
going to cut it off, are they ?  Just photograph it, right ?

So, just pay me for my driving and time, and you can take my picture
in the nude.

How much ?  Well if local, not too much driving, $100 ought to cover
it.

I suppose the only thing that might make me raise my price is economics.
If everyone else is chargin $1000, hell, pay me $500 and let's go !

/Eric

	What's a good scandal anyway without a bit of spicy sex?
Go for it Fawnie; it's the American way.

    If true as reported this story does raise a question in my mind:
    
    A few yesrs ago these magazines paid the model of the centre fold picture
    set $500. It has presumably gone up with inflation, but I doubt it has
    gone up by a factor of 1000.
    
    Therefore, if true, it seems to me that the magazines are, in a sense,
    in a morally questionable area. A professional model who poses for the
    magazine and gets paid is merely a professional doing work they presumably
    find reasonably acceptable. But this large fee implies that this woman
    is merely an object to be bought for a negotiated price. Now *that*
    I find sexist, as well as being morally objectionable.
    
    Should she do it? well she can live quite nicely on the money and two
    months after the pictures appear nobody will remember. The moral paupers
    here are the magazine publishers, not the potential model.
    
    /. Ian .\

    Men are 'foaming at the mouth' because she is a pretty female. 
    Rita Lavelle caused no such 'foam', nor did Nixon's secretary who's
    actions had far deeper implications than Fawn's.  Since she is now
    known, men are very interested in what her nips look like.  Her
    modeling agency is now receiving over twice the calls they ever
    did before - but she's the same physical model they shunned in the
    past.  Should she pose nude?  That's no one's decision but hers
    but my opinion is if she's going to trash her dignity for men's
    money, why stop at a one shot deal?  She could probably draw a high
    price over and over again for her body on the hoof!
    
    >But this large fee implies that this woman is merely an object to be 
    bought for a negotiated price. 
    
    And what are all the others?  More moral, more 'human' and less
    of an object because they are paid less?  Puleeze!  It's men who
    are setting her high price.  That they would even offer any price
    at all establishes that to them she is already an object.  
    
    >well she can live quite nicely on the money and two months after the 
    >pictures appear nobody will remember. 
     
    Try telling that to Madonna, to Vanessa Williams and to Vanna White
    that no one will remember 2 months after they pose.  I thought we
    were talking about the same planet earth here!
    
    And what I never understood about the whole deal was granting Fawn
    Hall immunity.  Can you be prosecuted for obeying your boss?  Of
    COURSE if your boss asks you to sell heroin at the local junior
    high school the situation is clear, but PLENTY of bosses ask their
    underlings to shred documents.  I don't understand how she was in
    danger of prosecution.  She's in far more danger of objectification.
    
    >The moral paupers here are the magazine publishers, not the potential 
    model.
    
    Big schmeal.  There isn't a hetersexual guy alive who wouldn't
    willingly accept the title "moral pauper" for a lifestyle that
    involved beautiful, naked female exhibitionists with low self-esteem
    and no rent money.  Would calling you a "moral pauper" cause you to change
    anything about your life?  Men don't care if women "lose respect"
    for them, (Cheryl Teigs note), and the CERTAINLY aren't going to
    care if somebody calls them names!  Hefner, Guccione and Flynt would
    laugh in your face at your self-righteous morality. 
    

    Oh what the hell...some trivia here...
    
    Last I heard...Playboy centerfolds get $10K for their photo spreads,
    with the Playmate-of-the-Year getting $25K.  If someone is not
    particularly self-conscious about their body, to them it's like
    getting paid alot of bucks for doing nothing.
    
    I remember, back when Farrah Fawcett was popular, she was offered
    one million for a photo spread; she didn't need the extra notoriety
    at the time so she didn't take the offer...
    
    yep...it's big business...if you've got a body that everyone wants
    to see.
    

    re .10
    
    Just curious....have you, in your lifetime ever met a man or men
    that were worth anything to you....besides being objects for you
    to beat on?
    

    
    re -.1
    
    Tsk, tsk.  Just cause Sandy was the first to say it here doesn't
    mean she's the only one to get pissed off on this issue.  If other
    women aren't screaming loud (I've F10-ed a couple of my own reactions
    to this so far), it could be because they don't want to be accused
    of man-hating.  You don't have to be a militant to get mad.
    
    Lee

    Yes, I've met men that are worth something, but unfortunately very
    few.
    
    The majority have bought into the Tarzan/Jane flavor of our culture
    and most of them I can't blame.  If society told me that what I
    was made me king of this jungle I'd be hard-pressed to argue!
    
    Most men I feel know exactly what's going on but the same dynamic that 
    occurs in the medical profession occurs in the 'male' profession and
    that is the attitude  "Keep quiet about your errant colleagues because 
    we have it real good here and tomorrow it could just as easily be you
    on the hot-seat".
    
    >If someone is not particularly self-conscious about their body, to
    them it's like getting paid alot of bucks for doing nothing.
                   
    This is a big male myth!  You think a woman just walks out of a traditional
    life and into a centerfold for big bucks?  We live in a society that
    still thinks women somehow 'deserve' rape and you think that a woman
    who works naked in the pornography industry leads a charmed life while 
    waiting for that big break to be bunny-of-the-day or something?
    
    Because these days pornography is packaged to look like
    Disney-World-For-Big-Boys men easily forget that it's a rough world
    run by men who make their fortunes looking at women as objects and 
    ornaments, the more they do, the better. 
    
    Naked models are bullied and pushed around by the men in their world 
    probably more than the average woman is in hers because to men she is
    symbolizing the idea that females are just bodies.  Men sometimes
    look sexually at a woman who is running for office or trying to
    publish a brilliant research paper or shopping in the grocery store
    with her children.  If men look upon 'everyday' women this way,
    how do you think the men in the pornography industry treat women
    who regularly spread 'em and smile?
    
    Fawn Hall is a model and probably knows full well that agreeing
    to this offer is FAR MORE than just having some "tastetful", (what
    the heck does that mean, anyway?), pictures taken.  She is a woman
    and as such knows that it's damned hard to get a man to respect
    you as a human.  If she sheds her clothes for the world, men are
    going to feel justified in treating her as more of an object than
    they already surely do.  You can be SURE women in her position think
    about the money and do a little rationalization if they can.  But
    Fawn Hall has turned down this offer to 'do nothing' for big bucks
    and not one guy in this topic has speculated as to why.  Stupid,
    ain't she?????   ;-)
    
    Unless she was offered enough to retire to Fiji on, she'd be a fool
    to do something that would be construed by men, (and it WILL be),
    as accepting her mere object status.
    
    I see lots of nastiness on the road to that Centerfold brass ring
    that the majority of naked models never even reach.  There is
    something more at work than money for a woman to subject herself so 
    completely to the wishes of men.  The possibility of being Hugh's #1 honey
    this month can't be it either.
    
    > yep...it's big business...if you've got a body that everyone wants
    to see.
    
    Not really.  It's big business even if you've got a body NOBODY
    wants to see.  The majority of skin mags are not prettily done up
    in the furry pearls and lace tone of the 'big one'.  A good body may
    make you a higher paid exhibitionist but you gotta start with no
    self respect because the majority don't start in a 'tasteful' spread
    in Playboy. 

    re: .15
    
    congratulations....you have come thru with another fine choice of
    words and examples. I am also glad that you have met some of us
    that meet your standards.
    
    I have been wondering...but not much...as to why Fawn decide not
    to do the photo layout. The only reason that makes any sense to
    me is that she thinks more of herself, than to allow herself to
    be put in the object catagory. whatever her reasons...they are hers
    and i don't think she will suffer for them.
    
    Question: do you (women in general) feel that because some women
    do pose for that type of magazine (skin), they compromise all women?
    in other words...they give the message....."we are objects...wanna
    a little fun". Also do they seem to set the women's movement back
    because of their exhibitionism.
    
    the Tarzan/Jane maybe true to a certain extent...but i can tell
    you one thing Sandy...the young woman of today is better armed mentally
    and physicaly to deal with the "macho" bullshit thats out there
    than her sisters of a generation ago. Some are louder than others,
    in their voicing of their feelings, but they are all better prepared
    to deal with the "mans" world than they have ever been. i know..i
    know...not fast enough...not soon enough...not equal enough, but
    it is better, and it continues to get better.
    
    Paul
    
    magazine

    RE:10
    
    I have a hard time feeling sorry for Madonna. Her videos are blatant
    sex and anyone who wears a belt buckle that says "BOYTOY" deserves
    the 'object' status she works so hard to promote.
    
    RE:15
    
    While I agree in general with your reply Sandy, the last time I
    checked this is America. No one is forcing Fawn to pose and she
    has stated she won't. What bothers me about the tone of your reply
    is that I get the impression that you feel all woman are manipulated
    into posing for these Mag's. You seem to think that if these woman
    thought for a moment and came to their senses, they wouldn't do
    it. While I agree that many men buy these mags to check out this
    months  centerfold, many women pose in these magazines as a means
    of furthering their own ambitions. Lets not kid ourselves here.
    Heffner/Guccione is not forcing anyone to do anything. Many women
    promote themselves however they can. I seem to remember Christie
    Brinkley, Janet Jones, Suzanne Sommers, Goldie Hawn sticking their
    face, and other body parts in Playboy (for a nice little fee) to
    help further their careers. So while I agree that Pornography is
    basically a dirty business, models/actresses ect... have used it
    for years for their own selfish reasons and will continue to do
    so whether you or I like it or not.
    
    Bob
    
    
    

        I think that much of what has been said here over-generalizes
        far too much about people--both men and women.
        
        I've known women who were open about sex and nudity because they
        had lots and lots of self confidence and a very strong self
        image. I've known women who were open about sex and nudity
        because they had no self-confidence and had to prove their
        worth. I've known women who were open about sex and nudity
        because they were as horny as Hell. I've known women who were
        open abut sex and nudity because it enabled them to manipulate
        and have power over men. I have no reason to believe that the
        women who appear in Playboy come in all of these classes.
        
        I've known women who were very private about sex and nudity
        because they had little or no confidence in their own worth or
        attractiveness. I've known women who were very private about sex
        and nudity because they valued sexual intimacy and wanted to
        share only with someone very special. I've known women who were
        very private about sex and nudity because they hated, distrusted
        or feared men. I've known women who were very private about
        sex and nudity because they thought it ugly, dirty, distasteful,
        or immoral. I have no reason to believe that Fawn Hall falls
        into anyone of these categories.
        
        I certainly have no reason to judge, or look down on, or dislike
        the women who appear in Playboy, Fawn Hall, Madonna, Hugh Hefner
        or anyone for there willingness or unwillingness to be open
        about sex and nudity. More than that I have no reason to like or
        dislike all men or women on the grounds that they are men or
        women or because I feel only one or two of the above motivations
        exists.
        
        As to one specific statement upon which I do have personal
        knowledge, I can state that it is absolutely false that
        
            "There isn't a hetersexual guy alive who wouldn't
            willingly accept the title "moral pauper" for a
            lifestyle that involved beautiful, naked female
            exhibitionists with low self-esteem and no rent money."
        
        Personally, I hold ethics and living by principles to be
        extremely important, and would not accept the title of
        "moral pauper" lightly, and certainly not in exchange for
        giving up the very good life I have for an inferior dream
        such as listed above. I have no interest in being sexually
        involved with more than one woman, nor with women with low
        self-esteem, nor with women more interested in exhibitionism
        than intimacy, love and romance.
        
        JimB.

    Bravo! to everything in .18, except:
    
    You've used the phrase "sex and nudity" as though the two are
    inseparable, and each necessarily implies the other.  There are
    certainly many people who are "open" about nudity, but not about
    sex; and I imagine it works the other way as well.  This cultural
    confusion of sex and nudity is certainly fundamental to the
    discussion going on here.
    
    	-Neil

        Gee, the reason I specified both was 'cause I thought they
        were separate and DIDN'T imply each other. Ah, well...
        Perhaps it should have been "sex and/or nudity", but then
        I'd get a lecture on how "and/or" isn't a legitimate
        construct. :-) 
        
        In fact, there's more to the confusion than just between sex
        and nudity. We also muddle intimacy, romance and sex in a
        rather hopeless manner. As I have said a number of times in
        this file, personally I'm not at all interested in sexual
        partners outside of my marriage, however this doesn't mean
        that a little romance (so long as it doesn't interfere with
        my marriage) or intimacy with a member of the opposite sex
        is out of the question. This often confuses people who will
        see that I'm on fairly intimate terms with some young lady
        or another, and can't reconcile that fact with my rather
        strong advocacy of marriage and monogamy.
        
        JimB. 

>I am also glad that you have met some of us that meet your standards.
    
If we're both real honest about it, I've probably met as many men that 
meet my standards as you have women that meet yours. 

>Question: do you (women in general) feel that because some women
do pose for that type of magazine (skin), they compromise all women?

You mean you don't?  Skin mags, commercials, movies, etc. haven't shaped 
your impression of women one tiny bit, eh?  You treat all of them with the 
same respect you had for the first woman in your life?  Really?

>...but i can tell you one thing Sandy...the young woman of today is better 
>armed mentally and physicaly to deal with the "macho" bullshit thats out there
>than her sisters of a generation ago. 

You're telling ME this?  Who didn't know this?  We're talking about the macho
bullshit that's still out there.  You're hearing from us BECAUSE we're better
prepared mentally and physically.  Our mothers' generation and those before
them were intimidated and bullied by threat of abandonment into meekness.
Now that we have control over random pregnancy and can pay our own rent, 
abandonment is no longer the threat it was.  Now we're calling society on the
carpet for the macho bullshit and saying we don't HAVE to take it.  Our 
mother's DID have to take it.  They couldn't have fed us otherwise.

Gee Bob, who feels sorry for Madonna?  I just stated what happened I didn't
say I pitied her!  Passivity and compliance is her trademark and I bet
she was the least concerned about her past coming back to haunt her.  I only
mentioned her and others to illustrate that the past DOES come back to haunt
you because someone said no one would remember if Fawn Hall posed anyway.

>What bothers me about the tone of your reply is that I get the impression 
that you feel all woman are manipulated into posing for these Mag's. 

Wrong impression then.  I think the women who pose choose to do so out of
revenge.  Unfortunately it's empty revenge because men don't see it.  All
women know that they are evaluated by men first for their sex appeal.  
Women who pose are thinking, "At least the scumbags are gonna PAY me!".
I think the women who pose willingly feel sorry for their less-attractive
sisters and think, "There, but for the grace of God, go I".  In this society
the men are the kings and the women are their slaves but the very attractive
woman is saying, "At least I'm at the top of the slave heap".  This message
that women who pose are giving reinforces the belief in ALL people that women 
are indeed the slaves.

>I certainly have no reason to judge, or look down on, or dislike the women 
>who appear in Playboy, Fawn Hall, Madonna, Hugh Hefner or anyone for there 
>willingness or unwillingness to be open about sex and nudity. 

And this is where you miss the point.  As someone else already pointed out,
sex and nudity are two different things.  But more important there is nothing
wrong with either of them!  What's wrong is men's use of it to keep one class
of people subjugated to the other.  Now there's nothing at all wrong with
a woman who is barefoot, is there?  Anything wrong with a woman who is preg-
nant?  Of course not.  Then think about what causes the snickers in the old
'barefoot and pregnant' line.  There is nothing wrong with what a woman is
but sexism is the doctrine that says yes there is.  Sexism is the doctrine
that says what is not male is not good enough.  Sexism says females are
worth little except in how they directly benefit men.  Skin mags exemplify 
this attitude by dissecting and glorifying ONLY the side of human females that
directly benefit men.  If magazines published pictures of men ONLY from their
wallet to their car, I doubt men would like it too much.  Men would be 
screaming that they are NOT just banks for women.  Same dynamic here.  What's
so hard to understand about it?

>           "There isn't a hetersexual guy alive who wouldn't
>            willingly accept the title "moral pauper" for a
>            lifestyle that involved beautiful, naked female
>            exhibitionists with low self-esteem and no rent money."
        
>        Personally, I hold ethics and living by principles to be
>        extremely important, and would not accept the title of
>        "moral pauper" lightly, and certainly not in exchange for
>        giving up the very good life I have for an inferior dream
>        such as listed above. 

Who said give up anything?  You missed the point.  Any man who had the
opportunity to work among naked models would not decline simply because
someone would think him a 'moral pauper'.  My point was you can call
such men anything you want and they would just laugh at you and assume
you were jealous.

re:21

>Question: do you (women in general) feel that because some women
>do pose for that type of magazine (skin), they compromise all women?

o.k....poor choice of words. Looking at the question now, i should have
put it this way. It seems that there was a lot af anger and "men bashing"
coming from your direction towards what seemed to be men in general.
What i should have asked was..are you angry at the men..or the women for
selling out to the men...in regards to posing. Hope that makes more sense
to you.

>You mean you don't?  Skin mags, commercials, movies, etc. haven't shaped 
>your impression of women one tiny bit, eh?  You treat all of them with the 
>same respect you had for the first woman in your life?  Really?

Yes it has shaped my impresssion of women, more than one tiny bit. Some
good....and sadly...some not so good. I am a victim of the media barrage
just like everybody else. The only difference now...is after getting into
these notes files and listening and reading about women and their concerns,
I have to say my thinking is changing again. We discussed this, once before
I think. What is coming around, for me, anyway is more respect, a lot more
understanding, and a hell of a lot more questions, about women and their 
issues.

>...but i can tell you one thing Sandy...the young woman of today is better 
>armed mentally and physicaly to deal with the "macho" bullshit thats out there
>than her sisters of a generation 

I didn't know it...because I never took the time to try to understand or
even care about it. I (mea culpa) bought the Tarzan/Jane garbage. "me work,
You cook"....didn't seem bad to me...at the time anyway. So I don't think
that I will ever be able to tell you anything new...the reason that I am
here...is to LEARN somwething from you and the others in this note. I
guess I will just read for awhile.

Paul

    Excuse me, ladies.  Aren't you assuming a bit much when
    you charge men with buying "pornographic" magazines and
    therefore "exploiting" women?  
    
    A percentage of the readers of these magazines are female.
    I admit to purusing them myself occasionally.
    
    I don't find it exploitive.  The women (and the men who
    pose also) are being paid to do a job.  Period.  I don't
    see any difference between a woman posing nude in Playboy
    and a woman posing dressed in Vogue.  The latter exploits
    women also.  It suggests to the reader that the "ideal"
    woman is 5'10", weighs 105 pounds and has $800 a week to
    spend on fashion.  Give me a break!  The ads I see in
    fashion magazines are often as suggestive as the more
    honest spreads in Playboy.
    
    To answer the question posed in the base note-no, I wouldn't.

RE: .

"If magazines published pictures of men ONLY from their wallet to their car, I
doubt men would like it too much.  Men would be screaming that they are NOT just
banks for women."

I don't know about anyone else, but *I* don't understand what you're saying...

...

The assumption is that "There isn't a hetersexual guy alive who wouldn't
*willingly accept* the title "moral pauper"" to work in the pornography
industry.   Well, I'm hetrosexual, and I *will not* willingly accept the title
"moral pauper" to work in the pornography industry; not that I would want to in
any case...

Jim.

    And Steppin' Fetchit was 'just doing a job, period' too!  Remember
    him?  The good little white man's nigga, (I am NOT a racist.  This
    sarcasm is here to illustrate the point that he was though of as the
    good little white man's nigga), who always played the shuffling
    black butler, janitor or shoe-shine boy.
    
    He was loved by the white men in hollywood and was paid more for por-
    traying the white man's idea of black men than for anything else a
    black man could have done in those days.  He was the one who coined
    the phrase, "mo' tea, suh?".  He did precious little for the
    emancipation of black people and today you're not likely to see a 
    Steppin' Fetchit movie at all!
    
    Women who pose for men are playing the role of the white man's little
    bimbo. Just as Steppin' Fetchit was cheered on and encouraged with
    money, so too are women cheered on and encouraged with money to
    portray their stereotypes.  The good little bimbo bowing and smiling
    and saying "Yessuh, yessuh.  Mo' tit suh?".  It's no different.
    White men had their black, their indian, their chinaman, their
    sex-symbol and today it's only ok to continue stereotyping woman.
                                                               
    

    Oh, give me a break!!  And give men more credit!!
    
    Lassie certainly portrays dogs as heroic, intelligent,
    creative and fearless.  What would MY dog do if confronted
    by a raging bear?  She'd run home with her non-existent tail
    between her legs, leaving ME to my own devices!!
    
    I think Lassie is great to watch.  Then I accept reality with
    my dog.  The men in my life enjoy watching women in "fantasy"
    roles.  Then they are quite satisfied with the reality that I
    offer them.  
    
    Maybe it's simply my confidence in myself as a woman, and as a
    human being....
    
    

    RE: .25
    
    Smile when you say "chinaman"...  :-)

        Wanna know a secret? I'm obviously one of worst things you can
        be in this world--totally despicable--much worse than a "moral
        pauper". You see *hush now*, I'm a Middle class, White, Anglo-
        Saxon, Protestant, Male, Heterosexual, Married, Suburban, Able-
        bodied, College Educated Professional--your basic scum bag.
        Ever noticed how you can't bad things about black people,
        or poor people or women, or homosexuals or the handicapped,
        by people like me--we're fair game.
        
        Does it matter how I've treated blacks? women? or anybody? No,
        all you have to know is my people have been in New England for
        350+ years, and you know enough to condemn them and me. All you
        need to know is that I have only one X-chromosome and you can
        tell I'm a pig. All you need to know is the color of my skin and
        you can judge me. If I let you know I went to the same private
        school as the Kennedy's you just know what kind of over-bearing
        snob I must be, regardless of how hard my father had to work to
        put together the tuition. 
        
        It isn't sexism to hate me because I'm a man. It isn't racism to
        hate me because I'm white. It isn't religious discrimination to
        tell me I can't pray in school. Sexism is defined as mistreating
        women, or just being male. Racism is mistreating blacks,
        orientals, American Indians, Hispanics or anyone who isn't
        white. Religious oppression is forcing someone to be a Christian
        or mistreating them because they aren't one.
        
        It doesn't matter that my ancestors were slaves or political
        prisoners--they were WASPs so they were the oppressors. It
        doesn't matter that an ancestor freed all of his slaves and gave
        them property to live on and to farm and paid them for their
        work long before those near him were forced to, clearly he was a
        slave-owning scum. 
        
        I sure do wish my heredity didn't force me to be such an evil
        person. It sure would be nice to be part of the guiltless
        oppressed minorities--able to publicly vent my anger and insult
        anyone I felt like. 
        
        It sure would be nice to believe that it's not racism to throw
        around phrases like "little white man's nigger" because it isn't
        the black man you hate but the white. It sure would be nice to
        believe that it isn't sexual stereotyping to say "the isn't a
        heterosexual guy alive who wouldn't willingly..." because it
        isn't poor oppressed women you're lumping together but evil and
        oppressive men. 
        
        Sorry to flame, but hatred, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness are
        ugly no matter who uses them or who they're directed at. After a
        while the two wrongs, or the ten wrongs or the hundred wrongs
        not only don't add up to a right, but they become overpowering.
        I try to understanding of why people let their hate, fear,
        pain and bitterness get the batter of them, but there's a
        limit to how much of it I can put up with.
        
        After a while I don't care what pain it was that turned someone
        into an unthinking, hate-filled bigot. All I can see is the
        result. The causes don't excuse the behavior. There's only so
        many decades you can listen to the recitation of how evil you
        and your people are, and not stand up and protest. Well, I
        protest. 
        
        JimB.

    I wonder if Ms. Ciccolini would turn her nose up at 500g
    and become "a whit man's little bimbo". 
    
    I certainly would'nt peak by her personality.
    
    ....And guess what... I like intelligent woman too!

    re .29
    
    As this and other discussions have evolved I have wondered why I
    haven't felt hatred.  I have had four major incidents in my life
    involving men...but not one of those men contribute to this file
    so what purpose would it have for me to express anger here.
    
    As a feminist contributing to this file I want to do what I can
    to display the qualities I have as a woman that will add value to
    my job and the world I live in.  
    
    Anger and rage, although justified, has rarely brought about change.
    Change in individuals occurs only when they can see some benefit
    to the change.  We can make people do things differently but we
    cannot change their attitudes...
                                       
    And yet, for those who feel that the anger and frustration difficult
    to handle look beyond that expression to the explanations.  Sandy
    has put a lot of effort into explaining and interpreting what has
    happened to women over the years.  This information is important
    to all of us, both men and women, and we need to mull it over and
    think about it.                  
    
    Last but not least, for those of us who tend to generalize it is
    important that we think about the ramifications of blaming large
    groups of people for acts only a segmant has committed.
    
    And those of us that are on the other side of generalizations we
    must be careful that we do not change our attitudes because of the
    generalizations of a few.

    
    This topic would be a whole lot more useful if people (men, especially)
    would simply read what Ms. Ciccolini has to say. Responses of the
    form, "I don't"/"the men I know don't"/"It used to be that way,
    but things are so much better now" are all irrelevent. It is obvious
    to me that her remarks are directed at our *male* dominated culture.
    Does she really have to put in little disclaimers, "now I don't
    mean all you nice, enlightened guys out there", and thereby dilute
    her discourse????
    
    If you don't, great; if the men you know don't, swell; if you or
    your situation has gotten better, wonderful. The point is that men's
    (many men/most men/ damn near ALL men) treatment of women is deserving
    of rigorous criticism.
        
    

    
    
    	Sorry, NOT damn near ALL men.. Yes, SOME men.. I believe they
    	are the ones who make it rough for women (and other men).
    
    	Please, don't insinuate that "All men are pigs". (A famous line
    	from a former DECcie)
    
    							mike

re .32: ... if people (men, especially) would simply read what Ms. Ciccolini 
    has to say... It is obvious to me that her remarks are directed at our 
    *male* dominated culture...
    

    Are you sure that you aren't merely reading into her remarks a general
    agreement with your own feelings. A sense of lofty isolation -- pointing
    remarks at a target such as a culture, rather than at [some or all]
    members of that culture -- does not always jump from my terminal screen
    as I read her remarks, or indeed those of several other contributors.
    
    I try very hard to read behind the bitterness for there is much of value
    in her remarks... so '9' for content, '1' for style and presentation.
                           
    It often seems here and in other conferences that we see the attitude
    of "an prejudiced extremist is somebody who disagrees with me".
    
    /. Ian .\
    

    RE: .35
    
    I agree with that. I also feel that a strong emotional tone interferes
    with the content of a message.  However, if someone chooses an abrasive
    style, the least they can do for their audience is to appropriately
    acknowledge it with flame-on/off. 

        
    RE: .0
    
    For .5MBucks?  If I had a 'marketable' bod, I'd certainly give it
    a thought!  However, I don't, so I'm left with the lottery as my
    big chance at the big bucks.  :-)
    
    Kak

Hmmm...  This is a "male dominated" world, eh?  I've recently been running up
against problems with things in this world that are quite "female dominated"...

Believe it or not, there has been a lot more male aquiesence to allowing women a
freer choice, then there has been of female aquiesence of allowing men a freer
choice! 

Jim... 

    To revert to the topic:

    In an earlier note I commented (perhaps with my usual opacity) that
    I was concerned about the size of the offer. There is a market rate
    for this work and she has been offered about 50 times the going rate.
    
    I also said that if she did all would be forgotten in a couple of months:
    I still believe that to be true. The Madonna example (and others) is
    not totally similar. In these cases we have examples were early in their
    careers (before their careers even started usually) someone does some
    pictures for a photographer, not usually for the magazine that eventually
    publishes them. They sell the artistic rights to the photographer (either
    by not reading the fine print on the model release form, or by not caring
    as long as they earn enough to pay the rent and buy food). At a later
    date the photographer cashes in on their new found fame by selling
    the old pictures for a large fee. This whole process I find objectionable,
    and unethical (if I did it I would be thrown out of my professional
    association). However in most cases no matter how sensational the publicity
    somebody gets in the media this month, in  a few months everything is
    forgotten. There was a major brou-ha-ha last fall about the "girls of
    Harvard" issue - interviews on the TV news, etc etc... but how many
    people still remember the women who posed?
    
    As for whether I would do it myself: when I was in art college learning
    to be a photographer all the students (myself included) freely took
    part in modelling sessions for the other students, much as in many art
    colleges students of drawing act as models in the life class. I would
    be very annoyed if one of those old photographs appeared in a magazine
    (I'd sue and probably win - I did read the model release form and
    commercial publication is outside the release). However if somebody
    were stupid enough to offer me $500,000 I'd take it and laugh all the
    way to the bank.
    
    Its a free country (still, I think) and this is a perfectly legal financial
    offer. She is free to take it or not, and should not be subject to moral
    censorship or feminist derision if she chooses to take it, any more
    than if she chose to sell her life story to a movie writer, or make
    any other deal she chooses.
    
    /. Ian .\

    On my questioning of the offer itself - the Boston Globe reported
    that Penthouse had offered $500K, but that Playboy had merely said
    they would be interested too - it did not place a figure on
    Playboy's offer.
    
    To me, Guccione's offer is for publicity purposes only - he may
    even have figured she'd turn him down.  I know that various
    women in the political limelight have had pictorials in Playboy
    (remember Rita Jenrette?).
    
    Why don't we bring male models who pose nude for women's magazines
    into this discussion?  Aren't the women who buy Playgirl sexist
    sows?  Or is there a double standard here?  
    
    					Steve

    > (remember Rita Jenrette?).
    
    Er... ah... can we "plead the fifth?"
    
    - M

    Those who are proud of their bodies would, sooner than those
    who aren't.
    
    I aren't.
    
    
    
    Jacki